In 2002, after reading an article by The Doors' John Densmore on the subject of musicians allowing their work to be featured in commercials, Tom Waits — a songwriter who, a decade previous, successfully sued Frito Lay for more than $2m after they ripped off one of his songs to sell Doritos, and has sued others since — wrote the following letter to The Nation and reiterated his opinion on the subject.

In 2002, after reading an article by The Doors' John Densmore on the subject of musicians allowing their work to be featured in commercials, Tom Waits — a songwriter who, a decade previous, successfully sued Frito Lay for more than $2m after they ripped off one of his songs to sell Doritos, and has sued others since — wrote the following letter to The Nation and reiterated his opinion on the subject.

I'm torn on this. I certainly understand his point and would like to agree with him. On the other hand, it is easy to be an idealist when you make enough money with your art to gain independence. I have no idea what musicians earn these days, but I'm fairly certain that The Sea & Cake got their biggest payday when they allowed one of their songs in a commercial a few years ago. I assume it allowed them to gain a little independence and continue with their work (I admittedly have no diea if they really needed the money to do so).

Waits says: "when you sell your songs for commercials, you are selling your audience as well." Problem is, you do not get to choose your audience and the moment you make your work available - and that includes sell it on vinyl, CD or iTunes - you don't know and you cannot control who the listeners are and what they do with your work. Just ask Kurt Cobain or Johnny Marr.

Last edited by Gaucho on Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

Even more than the past, musicians rely on making their money on the road.I wouldn't judge anyone, who feels the need to pick up some extra cash through licensing their music.It's not like allowing your song to be used in The Hangover VIII is more artistically valid.

I see valid points for both sides of the commercialism of artistic creations.

I remember John Mellencamp's rant about Nike using the Beatles' Revolution in a TV ad for shoes.

As a big fan of Neil Young, his "This Note's For You" was released in the middle of some of the worst commercialism of pop music.

Led Zeppelin, who until recently, rarely let their music be used in film or TV, sold the rights to "Rock and Roll" to Cadillac for what Page or Plant referred to as a "ridiculous amount" of money.

Pete Townshend, definitely one of the most creative of the 60s rock songwriters, is unrepentant on his frequent licensing of his songs for commercials and movies. On The Who's current "Quadrophenia" tour, Townshend refers to the set of hits they play after Quadrophenia as "The CSI songs."

If the artist doesn't care, then why should we? I totally see Waits' point about how the song also belongs to the fan, and the artist is actually selling the fan's memories and connection to the song. Interesting debate.